U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-01-2009, 07:38 AM
 
636 posts, read 811,847 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
We're not talking about right-wing extremists holding the nation hostage. We're talking about California and Maine, two solid blue states, who firmly rejected this by popular vote.

The worst argument ever is comparing slavery to being denied the right to have your union labeled "marriage". One involves physical bondage and abuse; the other is entirely symbolic and involves some hurt feelings. I have no sympathy for the gay community on this issue.

If New Jersey has enough respect for its citizens to put this to a popular vote, I will proudly vote against it.
Both involve rights that the people should not have the right to deny. The example works.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2009, 03:54 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 1,961,625 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Michigan Man View Post
It doesn’t matter what you or the people WANT. You do not have the right to deny two adults the right to marry. Just because a mob decides something doesn’t make it right. The 14th amendment agrees with this as well.
The government should not be in the business of "marrying" anyone. Marriage is a societal, cultural, and religious concept performed by private religious institutions who want to remain marrying exclusively heterosexual couples. The idea of the federal government legislating some new PC tolerance law to force institutions like the Roman Catholic Church to marry homosexuals against their moral wishes is disgraceful. The people that complain about the government "preventing" them from achieving something are the same people who want the government to overextend itself and FORCE something on the country which the majority of people and their churches don't want. It's a disgusting, despicable attitude and when the people get a chance to vote against it, they will, in even the most liberal of states. I don't give a fig about getting married or homosexual culture, but this is an issue of state's rights and the desires of the people. To hell with a federal government that legislates its values on me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2009, 07:42 AM
 
636 posts, read 811,847 times
Reputation: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
The government should not be in the business of "marrying" anyone. Marriage is a societal, cultural, and religious concept performed by private religious institutions who want to remain marrying exclusively heterosexual couples. The idea of the federal government legislating some new PC tolerance law to force institutions like the Roman Catholic Church to marry homosexuals against their moral wishes is disgraceful. The people that complain about the government "preventing" them from achieving something are the same people who want the government to overextend itself and FORCE something on the country which the majority of people and their churches don't want. It's a disgusting, despicable attitude and when the people get a chance to vote against it, they will, in even the most liberal of states. I don't give a fig about getting married or homosexual culture, but this is an issue of state's rights and the desires of the people. To hell with a federal government that legislates its values on me.
I agree with most of what you say, especially states right. I agree in that the best scenario is to get the Fed out of our lives and let us govern ourselves in a more de-centralized fashion. And I also agree the government bureaucrats shouldn’t be involved in marriage, it should be up to the couple’s attorney and/or personal religious institution.

The problem is that the Fed DOES extend certain benefits to married people. I wish they wouldn’t, but since they do, they shouldn’t also deny these benefits to gay couples. And the only reason they don’t extend them to all is for political reasons – to appeal to their base.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2009, 09:57 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,442 posts, read 2,974,492 times
Reputation: 1871
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Michigan Man View Post

The problem is that the Fed DOES extend certain benefits to married people. I wish they wouldn’t, but since they do, they shouldn’t also deny these benefits to gay couples. And the only reason they don’t extend them to all is for political reasons – to appeal to their base.
Again................ Spot on.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Location: North Jersey
10,533 posts, read 14,412,737 times
Reputation: 6126
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
The government should not be in the business of "marrying" anyone. Marriage is a societal, cultural, and religious concept performed by private religious institutions who want to remain marrying exclusively heterosexual couples. The idea of the federal government legislating some new PC tolerance law to force institutions like the Roman Catholic Church to marry homosexuals against their moral wishes is disgraceful. The people that complain about the government "preventing" them from achieving something are the same people who want the government to overextend itself and FORCE something on the country which the majority of people and their churches don't want. It's a disgusting, despicable attitude and when the people get a chance to vote against it, they will, in even the most liberal of states. I don't give a fig about getting married or homosexual culture, but this is an issue of state's rights and the desires of the people. To hell with a federal government that legislates its values on me.
I don't see that happening, the RC church denies marriage to hetero couples that have fallen out of grace with the church and the feds don't get involved.
It would be public servants...mayors, judges that would have to comply, I don't know where that would leave a public servant who did not want to perfrom the ceremony because it goes against their religious beliefs
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 02:02 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 1,961,625 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkate View Post
I don't see that happening, the RC church denies marriage to hetero couples that have fallen out of grace with the church and the feds don't get involved.
It would be public servants...mayors, judges that would have to comply, I don't know where that would leave a public servant who did not want to perfrom the ceremony because it goes against their religious beliefs
If the recent events in Louisiana are any indication, in which a civil servant was fired for refusing to marry a couple and referring them to another JOP because of his personal beliefs, then I can say we are already skidding down that infamous slippery slope when we invite the federal government to intervene in the marriage business to appease special interest groups.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 02:14 PM
 
628 posts, read 350,329 times
Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
If the recent events in Louisiana are any indication, in which a civil servant was fired for refusing to marry a couple and referring them to another JOP because of his personal beliefs, then I can say we are already skidding down that infamous slippery slope when we invite the federal government to intervene in the marriage business to appease special interest groups.

I have to disagree with this. This JOP is a state worker, and there is no laws saying interracial couples cannot marry. There is no slippery slope, this JOP decided to put his racism in front of his job. Can you imagine if a police or fireman refused to help this couple becuase they where a bi-racial couple?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 02:18 PM
 
1,308 posts, read 2,083,762 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeym81 View Post
I have to disagree with this. This JOP is a state worker, and there is no laws saying interracial couples cannot marry. There is no slippery slope, this JOP decided to put his racism in front of his job. Can you imagine if a police or fireman refused to help this couple becuase they where a bi-racial couple?
Agreed. That JOP should have been fired on the spot.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 03:09 PM
 
1,645 posts, read 1,961,625 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeym81 View Post
I have to disagree with this. This JOP is a state worker, and there is no laws saying interracial couples cannot marry. There is no slippery slope, this JOP decided to put his racism in front of his job. Can you imagine if a police or fireman refused to help this couple becuase they where a bi-racial couple?
As far as the case in question is concerned, this man did not act out of malicious intent, but personal conscience. By referring them to another JOP, he did nothing to sabotage their potential union; he just didn't want to personally involve himself with it. It's really a shame that certain areas of the country and state governments are taking it upon themselves to ram diversity and political correctness down people's throats. Not everyone has to agree with mixed marriages, you know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2009, 03:17 PM
 
628 posts, read 350,329 times
Reputation: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantGardenStater View Post
As far as the case in question is concerned, this man did not act out of malicious intent, but personal conscience. By referring them to another JOP, he did nothing to sabotage their potential union; he just didn't want to personally involve himself with it. It's really a shame that certain areas of the country and state governments are taking it upon themselves to ram diversity and political correctness down people's throats. Not everyone has to agree with mixed marriages, you know.

There is no law against mixed marriages. He is a state worker there to serve the people. He was wrong, and got what he deserved. If you wanna call that ramming diversity and political correctness down people's throats then fine... I hope they ram it harder.

Also at this point in time, if anyone has anything against mixed marriages they need to go back to 1956, times have changed for the better and they don't deserve to be around civilized people.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top